Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Noahs ark is a physical impossibility
John
Inactive Member


Message 46 of 71 (34486)
03-15-2003 10:33 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by Buzsaw
03-15-2003 6:38 PM


quote:
Not uite that simple, imo, John.
I'm afraid it is. And you prove me right by trying to support that first clause. Lets see what you have to say about that, eh?
quote:
1. Fulfilled Biblical prophecy.
I haven't seen a good example of this yet, but you are welcome to take a shot.
quote:
2. Archeological evidence of Biblical history, including supernatural events.
Archeaology hardly paints the picture presented in the Bible. There are overlaps but the tales are not the same. The Bible slants the truth towards the people who wrote it, just like all similar cultural epics.
And... evidence for supernatural events? Are you serious?
quote:
3. The observed evidence of the supernatural in the occult, paganism such as voodo, spiritism and others realms of the Biblical evil phenomenon.
3. The observed evidence of the supernatural in areas of Christian fundamentalism.

None of which, I am sad to say (truly), has any real evidence behind it.
quote:
So you believe "magic"/supernatural may be true in some fashion?
"Might" is a very big word. Pretty much anything might be true. That doesn't get you a hair closer to finding out what actually is true. You didn't answer the question.
So must I believe EVERYTHING on the grounds that it MIGHT be true, or believe what I can reasonably infer to be true?
quote:
1. Your assessment of the capability of the ark is relative to what you believe about the ark and the state of the animals therein.
Yes. I assume it was constucted as per the dimensions in the Bible and I assume the animals were... well, animals and were of normal size, shape, density, etc. That is, I haven't added to or subtracted from what actually appears in the good book. You however have added at least one bit-- that the animals hibernated. It seems reasonable that this would have been mentioned. Perhaps you would also like to endow the ark with TARDIS-like spacial properties as well?
quote:
2. There is, in the opinion of an ever growing number of credible folk
Frankly, credible folk throughout the ages can be shown to have believed utter crap, so this appeal to public opinion falls rather flat. Maybe that is why it is considered a fallacy of informal logic?
quote:
evidence to the landing site of the ark
Someone is pulling the wool over you eyes. Even ChristianAnswers.net has the sense to not bet on this one.
[qs]Dozens of expeditions to the Ararat region of eastern Turkey, mostly by American Christian groups, have led to numerous claims - but no proof.
Has anyone discovered Noah's Ark? - ChristianAnswers.Net
quote:
evidence to the fact of the flood
The evidence just isn't there. Unless, of course, evidence of a regional flood 1500 years prior to the creation of the planet counts as evidence, as you appear to think that it does.
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by Buzsaw, posted 03-15-2003 6:38 PM Buzsaw has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by nator, posted 03-15-2003 11:49 PM John has replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 47 of 71 (34488)
03-15-2003 11:37 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by Buzsaw
03-14-2003 8:34 PM


quote:
Imo, the dinosaurs were the "serpents" of Genesis which were zapped from walkers to belly crawlers when God cursed them as the result of the serpent deceiving Eve.
Um, except that dinosaurs aren't belly-crawlers.
quote:
Creatures lived very long before the flood and likely many of the parent serpents/dinosaurs lived up until the flood, but their offspring, when born were born as the cursed belly crawlers. You take an allegator, pump him up and furnish him with a couple of long large hind legs and you've pretty much got a large dinosaur.
1) No you don't, and
2) Where is the physical evidence which would lead you to this conclusion?
quote:
1. Dinosaurs and modern serperts are both reptiles.
Correct, although you would be more accurate to call them Diapsids, which include dinosaurs, reptiles, and birds.
quote:
2. ALL dinosaurs became distinct.
Well, not if you consider the distinct probability that modern birds are evolved dinosaurs.
quote:
No other species has ever became totally extinct.
Huh? It's estimated that over 90% of the species which have ever existed have gone exitnct.
Millions and millions of species have gone extinct since life began.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by Buzsaw, posted 03-14-2003 8:34 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by Buzsaw, posted 03-24-2003 7:45 PM nator has replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 48 of 71 (34489)
03-15-2003 11:49 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by John
03-15-2003 10:33 PM


quote:
Frankly, credible folk throughout the ages can be shown to have believed utter crap, so this appeal to public opinion falls rather flat. Maybe that is why it is considered a fallacy of informal logic?
Nancy and Ronald Reagan had an official astrologer, as have many members of the British royal family.
Sir Arthur Conan Doyle belived in existence of fairies.
Dan Quayle thought that there are canals on Mars.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by John, posted 03-15-2003 10:33 PM John has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by John, posted 03-16-2003 9:22 AM nator has not replied

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 49 of 71 (34504)
03-16-2003 9:22 AM
Reply to: Message 48 by nator
03-15-2003 11:49 PM


Right.
Newton was an alchemist... Aristotle believed all manner of odd things about animal life... the list goes on...
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by nator, posted 03-15-2003 11:49 PM nator has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 50 of 71 (35038)
03-23-2003 9:01 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by Buzsaw
03-15-2003 4:34 PM


quote:
Buzsaw writes:
When I was born in 1935, color digital data flying through thin air would've been considered supernatural as well as space ships flying through space, and to the moon.
Interesting. So then, you recognize that color data transmission and space travel aren't in fact supernatural? And that if you had thought that at the time, you would have been wrong? And if you had known what you know now (that space travel is a natural phenomenon) and had seen others in error, you might have labored to help them overcome their ignorance?
Then perhaps you might understand why us evolutionists come to boards like this to challenge preconceptions that smack of superstitious dogma rather than evidence-supported, naturalist theories. Certainly much about the world around us was thought to be supernatural. That doesn't mean it is. That doesn't even mean that if we can't explain it, it must be supernatural. The history of science implies the opposite.
Ok, sorry, off-topic. Just thought I'd respond. Here's a question for the Arkists: Assuming you're right about only needing two of every "kind" (whatever a kind is) instead of two of every species, how many kinds is that? And from those kinds, how can we get as many species as we see today without assuming rates of speciation that even an evolutionary biologist would be hard-pressed to accept?
It's a "dammed if you do, dammned if you don't" situation - if you have few enough "kinds" to fit in a boat of any possible size then you don't have enough individuals to lead to the number of species we have today. If you assume enough "kinds" for a more reasonable rate of speciation then the boat has to be of impossible size.
------------------
Epimenedes Signature: This is not a signature.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by Buzsaw, posted 03-15-2003 4:34 PM Buzsaw has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by Percy, posted 03-24-2003 7:58 AM crashfrog has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 51 of 71 (35060)
03-24-2003 7:58 AM
Reply to: Message 50 by crashfrog
03-23-2003 9:01 PM


Someone once said (was it Arthur C. Clarke?) that sufficiently advanced science would be indistinguishable from magic. An obvious corollary is that the less one knows about science the more likely something is going to seem like magic.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by crashfrog, posted 03-23-2003 9:01 PM crashfrog has not replied

  
Jesuslover153
Inactive Member


Message 52 of 71 (35139)
03-24-2003 2:58 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by metatron
11-23-2002 8:42 PM


I have to wonder how many animals were on board and what the food amount would be.. these are my loose calculations...
there are about 18,000 land species of animals.. this includes birds, amphibians and mammals,
lets say that 50% of these are clean and 50% unclean
9,000 x 7 for the clean animals= 63,000
9,000 x 2 for the unclean animals= 18,000
= 91,000
How many of the unclean animals could survive off eating the dung of the clean animals, (which cities in the states and canada save millions by feeding there sewage to pigs?)... that takes care of the hugest brunt of the dung... we are also dealing with genetically superior beings, not just the humans being supperior but also the animals and the food, they would metabolise better than what we do today, most likely there was alot of sleeping going on here, so in a state of rest they most likely would not have needed to eat as much as if they were active.
Noah did bring food aboard the ship so I would assume that there was enough to feed the creatures through the whole time of there stay, and again the unclean 18,000 animals would have eaten the dung of the clean, so that leaves only 63,000 clean animals to feed...
My question is how do we figure out the superior levels of genetics that are taking place at this time... and I wonder if there was any fasting taking place throughout the 371 days they were on board the ship...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by metatron, posted 11-23-2002 8:42 PM metatron has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by crashfrog, posted 03-24-2003 4:21 PM Jesuslover153 has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 53 of 71 (35149)
03-24-2003 4:21 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by Jesuslover153
03-24-2003 2:58 PM


An Inordinate Fondess for Beetles
I think it's species-ism of the worst kind to assume that the ark contained only land vertabrates. As others have addressed, you're going to need aquariums for all "kinds" of fish, as well - the flood waters are going to be too salty for freshwater fish but too fresh for saltwater fish.
Not to mention the insects, which constitute the bulk of Earth's species. If you honestly believe that you could go from two members of a "kind" to the variety of species we see, consider the beetles. The ark story demands that, from a pair of beetles, we would get the 400,000 known species of beetles we see today, within a time frame of 4500 years. That's around 100 species a year - a rate that, if true, we could easily see today.
You'd have to accept irrational levels of evolution to accept any practical (in terms of shipbuilding) model of the ark story. I don't see how such a story could be accepted by creationists, given their stance on speciation, etc. But I guess if you demand an inerrant Bible that's the kind of contradiction you have to accept...
Oh, and consider that "genetic superiority" must be taken in context of environment. So an animal that was adapted to boat travel (i.e. being stationary for a long, long time, eating hardly at all, not coming into heat, etc.) would be genetically superior for that one year, but as soon as it stepped onto dry land it would be massively misadapted to the new environment and therefore unable to propagate.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by Jesuslover153, posted 03-24-2003 2:58 PM Jesuslover153 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by Jesuslover153, posted 03-24-2003 6:01 PM crashfrog has replied

  
Jesuslover153
Inactive Member


Message 54 of 71 (35154)
03-24-2003 6:01 PM
Reply to: Message 53 by crashfrog
03-24-2003 4:21 PM


Re: An Inordinate Fondess for Beetles
When you take into account the decree of God stating that mans years would only be 120 years in Genesis 6, and when you do the math of the numbers there it took 1000 years for this decree to come in force...
God used the environment to effect us, and as is observable environment does effect us in way of our health and not only ours but our offspring.
And for the fish I will give you the genetically superior..
My question to you is where than would all the salt come from to make the water to salty?
With the amount of water that would be upon the earth in that time I am sure the amount of salt would be pretty well on scale.
And I think that going from 2 or 7 of each species to make all the species on earth now is a far lesser cry than all of this coming from a single ameoba in the primordial soup...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by crashfrog, posted 03-24-2003 4:21 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by crashfrog, posted 03-24-2003 8:35 PM Jesuslover153 has not replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 55 of 71 (35166)
03-24-2003 7:45 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by nator
03-15-2003 11:37 PM


quote:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Buz:
----------
Imo, the dinosaurs were the "serpents" of Genesis which were zapped from walkers to belly crawlers when God cursed them as the result of the serpent deceiving Eve.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Schrafinator:
Um, except that dinosaurs aren't belly-crawlers.
You missread me. My statement implied that the offspring of the leggy dinosaurs were born as modern style belly crawling reptiles, and it was these which were taken into the ark. So all the remaining dinosaurs died in the flood. This made them extinct. Many breeds of species have become extinct, but the dinosaurs all became extinct at the time of the flood. I've said all that to say there were no dinosaurs in the ark.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by nator, posted 03-15-2003 11:37 PM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by nator, posted 05-13-2003 9:50 AM Buzsaw has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 56 of 71 (35167)
03-24-2003 8:35 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by Jesuslover153
03-24-2003 6:01 PM


Re: An Inordinate Fondess for Beetles
jesuslover153 writes:
When you take into account the decree of God stating that mans years would only be 120 years in Genesis 6, and when you do the math of the numbers there it took 1000 years for this decree to come in force...
I'm not sure what you mean by this. Do you mean that the 4500 years (calculated from lineages after Noah, I assume - I'm no Biblical scholar) might in fact represent a lot more time? Could be, I guess, but we're talking time multiplication of a factor of a thousand or more to have enough time for all the "kinds" on the ark to sufficiently speciate at the rate we observe speciation today.
My question to you is where than would all the salt come from to make the water to salty?
It's in the ocean. If the hypothetical floodwaters rose high enough to "cover the Earth", then surely they would mix with the ocean. Considering that the ocean (at least these days) is far deeper than the height of any mountain, I think it's safe to assume that oceanic water would constitute a sizable majority of flood waters. Saltwater ocean life in general has a low tolernace for changes in salinity. Coral, for instance, would be killed simply by the change in depth from the flood. That would more or less kill the planet's ecosystem, because the coral reef zones are the major source of oxygen (through the action of phytoplankton). Unless Noah takes some coral (unlikely, because coral is difficult to transport alive even with our technology), the flood kills the planet. And it would take a million years to generate full-fledged coral ecosystems from a founding population.
Now, if you postulate that the oceans were a lot smaller before the flood, you're still faced with an ocean ecology that couldn't survive the transition to larger, saltier oceans.
And I think that going from 2 or 7 of each species to make all the species on earth now is a far lesser cry than all of this coming from a single ameoba in the primordial soup...
Only if you ignore the time scale. You're talking about some 2 - 100 million current species from about a hundred or a thousand "kinds" (whatever a kind is) in a space of less than 5000 years. That's at least 400 new and very different species every year. And that's a pretty conservative estimate. That would be something so noteworthy it would have been recorded by every civilization, including the writers of the Bible. As well as something we would see today.
On the other hand, all those species over one billion years of evolution? Only 1 new species every 10 years. Obviously it doesn't work out that evenly, but it's a much more reasonable model.
Obviously the ark scenario would be a bottleneck event of cosiderable damage and magnatude. It's doubtful that the Earth's ecosystems would survive. Noah and his animals would perish of asphixiation and starvation after they got off the ark, assuming they survived the trip (which as others have made the point, would be impossible.)
------------------
Epimenedes Signature: This is not a signature.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by Jesuslover153, posted 03-24-2003 6:01 PM Jesuslover153 has not replied

  
peanutbean6111
Inactive Member


Message 57 of 71 (39825)
05-12-2003 5:56 PM


REASONS FOR WHY GOD DIDN'T JUST
DAVID UNFAMOUS SAID:
As for the flood, I still haven't heard any reason why an all-powerful God who allegedly created the Universe needed to use rainfall to wipe out his disobedient children instead of just snapping his fingers and making them all disappear, save Noah. Couldn't this all have been done in an instant?
WHAT I SAY:
If he performed the snapping the fingers act, there wouldn't be any scientific evidence left for "creationsists" to prove their case. God thought about this ahead of time, because he knew people would question things such as this. At least a global flood can be scientifically proven as correct or incorrect because of fossil remains, coal deposits, etc. If God were to just snap his fingers, there would be absolutely no evidence to back up the claims of the Bible and many people would not believe this truth.
Thank you for your time and if you have any further questions, just email me.
Christ lives!
Brianna

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by crashfrog, posted 05-12-2003 6:00 PM peanutbean6111 has not replied
 Message 59 by PaulK, posted 05-12-2003 6:03 PM peanutbean6111 has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 58 of 71 (39827)
05-12-2003 6:00 PM
Reply to: Message 57 by peanutbean6111
05-12-2003 5:56 PM


Re: REASONS FOR WHY GOD DIDN'T JUST
If God were to just snap his fingers, there would be absolutely no evidence to back up the claims of the Bible and many people would not believe this truth.
So, instead, what we have is evidence AGAINST the flood story, leaving many people to reject the literal truth of the bible? Why is that better?
Better that the flood story was never in the bible, because it's pretty clear that it didn't happen that way.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by peanutbean6111, posted 05-12-2003 5:56 PM peanutbean6111 has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 59 of 71 (39828)
05-12-2003 6:03 PM
Reply to: Message 57 by peanutbean6111
05-12-2003 5:56 PM


Re: REASONS FOR WHY GOD DIDN'T JUST
If God used a flood so it would leave evidence then what happened to the evidence ? If God's intent was as you say than God failed, miserably. So your explanation cannot be correct.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by peanutbean6111, posted 05-12-2003 5:56 PM peanutbean6111 has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 60 of 71 (39932)
05-13-2003 9:50 AM
Reply to: Message 55 by Buzsaw
03-24-2003 7:45 PM


OK, I get that I misread you about what went extinct, etc. However, you did not address the following:
quote:
Buzz: You take an allegator, pump him up and furnish him with a couple of long large hind legs and you've pretty much got a large dinosaur.
1) No you don't, and
2) Where is the physical evidence which would lead you to this conclusion?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by Buzsaw, posted 03-24-2003 7:45 PM Buzsaw has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by John, posted 05-13-2003 10:04 AM nator has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024